Thursday, November 15, 2012

The UC Regents, Governor Brown, and the Online Hail Mary

During the most recent UC Regents meeting, one theme that continued to raise its ugly head was the specter of online education as the great economic cure for all that ails the university. The UCLA Faculty Association blog gives the following summary: “Regents chair Lansing pushed for more progress on online education. Others, including Lt. Gov. Newsom, were also impatient about UC progress on online education. One of the student reps was not so convinced that online education was quite the panacea that some Regents seemed to think . . . Governor Brown reflected on the discussion of online education. Tradition is a Good Thing but UC might be going the way of the Post Office and print newspapers in the face of digital developments. The proposed UC budget would increase by 9% and unless there are tuition increases the state can’t afford such projections. UC has to assume budget squeezes and find new ways to deliver services. Maybe this is more threatening than when the Regents faced Angela Davis teaching on a campus. Why can’t the Regents have experts come and talk about such matters at the next meeting? Lansing agreed to that idea and it was ordered. Lt. Gov. Newsom (if I recognized his voice) seemed to want to help design the session. Provost Dorr was criticized for not moving the online matter along faster. Chancellor Birgeneau of Berkeley said that in fact we are well engaged in online education and that the Regents seem unaware of it. (“We are leading the world.”) Gov. Brown pointed out that the Berkeley examples are not for credit. There was back and forth about what was for credit and what wasn’t. It was decided that the presentation for the next meeting will also include what UC is doing now on online education.” So it looks like the next Regents meeting will contain a presentation and discussion of the current state of the online project and what we can expect in the future for UC digital education.

This push to solve the university’s funding problems through online education needs to be put in a broader context. Recently we have witnessed many of the most elite universities in the United States jumping onto the MOOC (massive open online courses) bandwagon, and we need to ask, why are they doing this? After all, schools like Stanford, MIT, and Harvard are defined by their selectivity and high costs, and so it seems strange that they would want to promote a form of education that is open to the masses for little if any cost. Perhaps, these institutions just feel that more people in the world should be exposed to their expert knowledge, or maybe they are following the new media business model of built it, let them use it, and then charge them once they become hooked.

I would like to pose a more critical and realistic interpretation: elite universities are promoting online education, which will lead other schools to commit financial and educational suicide. To be clear, I am not arguing that this plan is an intentional plot or conspiracy; rather, following the law of unintended consequences, many good intentions can result in a destruction of the common good. Call it the inverted invisible hand: universities and individual faculty members want to do good by making their intellectual property available for free, but the end social result is that the business model for higher education is destroyed.

Just as local newspapers have been undermined by Craigslist and the music industry has been devastated by Napster and iTunes, higher education may be heading down the path of economic self-destruction. By embracing low-cost, high-access instruction, non-elite schools will lose their competitive advantage; moreover, the idea that the masses can be taught online, while the elites continue to receive valued credentials from residential institutions may result in the formation of a digital ghetto for the majority of non-wealthy Americans.

My first piece of evidence of how online education leads to institutional suicide can be found in a recent Chronicle of Higher Education article aptly entitled, “UC Online Strives to Compete in an Era of Free Courses.” In discussing how the University of California system is failing at its attempt to develop an online educational strategy, we are informed that, “Online education was going to revolutionize the University of California system, drawing thousands to the selective institution's online courses and bringing in new revenue to help allay budget cuts. That was the pitch for UC Online, started two years ago with the belief that millions in seed money could easily be raised from foundations or other private sources to get the bold effort off the ground. But UC Online now appears to be struggling, even as other highly selective colleges rush to offer their courses online at no charge (and, unlike the University of California, with no credit).” In the case of the UC system, the move to online courses was seen as a way of dealing with devastating state budget cuts, but after pouring several millions of dollars into this project, the system has still not found a way to cash in on its digital panacea.

Not only has the UC system failed to make money on its online initiative, but we learn that they have actually lost millions: “University of California officials failed to rustle up those private donations and were forced to take out a $6.9-million loan from the system's Office of the President last year to prop up the effort, with strong opposition from faculty members who did not want university money used for the project.” Like so many other institutions of higher education, the faculty are here pitted against an administration that is spending millions on an online initiative while traditional courses are being eliminated and class sizes are being expanded. Instead of using scarce resources to improve the quality of undergraduate instruction, the UC is trying to get non-university students to take expensive online courses: “It needs to attract at least 3,000 non-UC students this year and add 1,000 more each year until it reaches 7,000 non-UC students to pay back its loan on time, said DoQuyen Tran-Taylor, project manager for UC Online.” In other words, as UC students pay more for less education, non-UC students are being recruited to repay the debt of a struggling online project.

The Chronicle points out that one reason why the UC initiative may be failing is that it cannot compete with the elite universities, which are giving their courses away for free: “The pivotal question is whether people will choose to shell out money for UC Online courses rather than for already-established online programs or one of the many free online courses, known as massive open online courses, or MOOC's, offered by a growing number of well-known colleges.” It appears that the answer to this question is that elite universities have successfully used MOOC’s to undermine the competition and prevent cash-strapped public schools from reaping the benefits of the digital gold rush.

Once again, I do not think that this is an intentional strategy, but it reflects the inability of some higher education institutions to consider the total ecology of their economies. Although the UC thought that private high-tech donors would seed their online program, the reality is that the big money has moved to private online ventures: “UC Online has raised only $748,000 in private financing for the project—through a Next Generation Learning Challenges grant by the Gates foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Private companies leading free online-education efforts, meanwhile, have been raking in investment cash. Coursera, for instance, boasts more than $22-million from investors.” In this new form of privatization, private companies are funneling their money to private institutions because they see a much higher potential for large profits; meanwhile, public institutions are scrambling to find ways to monetize their online programs.

Returning to the University of California, we discover that as private seed money is drying up, the costs of developing an online program continue to escalate: “UC Online spent $4.6-million on developing the project in the 2011-12 academic year, and expects to spend about $7-million this year in additional development and marketing efforts, said Shelly Meron, a University of California spokeswoman. An 18-month contract with the course-management software company Blackboard took up a significant portion of that spending—$4.3-million . . .” Thus, at the same moment that the university is facing reduced state funding and swelling enrollments, money that could be used to hire more teachers or house more classes is being sent to a private company to develop online course infrastructure. One has to wonder why the UC system could not have developed its own open source course programs and why the administration is bent on pursuing this high-cost strategy.

On a positive note, the MOOC revolution may force universities to determine what value they actually deliver to students. Instead of joining a race to the bottom, universities like the UC system should defend the importance of the residential educational experience. Not only do students on our campuses learn how to live on their own and navigate through competing social interests, but universities remain one of the few places where our citizens can engage in deep and important conversations concerning the most important aspects of their lives. In contrast to online courses, university classes force students to encounter new ideas and people; however, universities often undermine this experience by not providing a high-quality learning experience. The solution, then, is not to turn to a lower form of social interaction and instruction; instead our universities have to prove their worth by recommitting themselves to undergraduate education.

In short, instead of shifting their resources and attention to a fantasized digital cure, our universities need to focus on providing high-quality instruction to undergraduates. Furthermore, in place of building new entertainment centers and food courts for students, universities should hire more full-time faculty to provide effective in-person learning environments. A real race to the top would mean that we start to engage students in a meaningful life offline and online. As the elite private universities tell the masses that they can settle for an inferior educational experience, our public universities must push for high-quality higher education for all.

29 comments:

MIT and Harvard are notorious for not giving a fig about their undergrad education. Stanford is a lot better. But still.. those online efforts are mainly a PR exercise... gets their names even better known throughout the world.

The real point is: online education will bubble up from the bottom, if it is to be successful. Top down by the UCOP $300K/year bureaucrats will always fail.

OK, let's take a deep breath. Regents don't understand educational quality. But with the trends in our current tax system, annual budget increases in state systems are unsustainable. So the issue is, how will public education respond to being perceived as an "entitlement"? What is our counter-framing?

What we need is a thoughtful internal discussion and response that aligns our definition of excellence with public understanding of our value, including in the "public" the kinds of business leaders who typically become Regents. We need short and long-term strategies for this. To win, we need to demonstrate creativity and flexibility, and look/be "nimble" as we address fundamental needs in the state/national economy.

Refusing to discuss the possibility of valuable online education is not creative, flexible, or nimble. It's a losing strategy.

If you don't want to be thought of as an entitlement, lower the cost of doing business. The people have a feel for what they're getting for their money. A friend of mine who went to U Cal 30 years ago is rather bitter about the high prices of today. He said he could understand paying a few thousand for the big lecture hall classes then, but not the $50k that out-of-staters pay today.

And for all that people talk about cuts, they're really small on the scale of things. When people hear about the huge six figure incomes that are bigger than the governor's salary, they start to see the university leadership as just another kleptocracy.

This article focuses on what a learner should take into consideration when choosing the right accelerated online degree program. Some very useful tips are written to make it easier for an online learner to make a decision. Read more for the details.

I worked at UC Berkeley for twenty years (1987 – 2007), first as the assistant director of the Instructional Technology Program and latter as a senior strategist for Educational Technology Services (which resulted from a merger of ITP and the Office of Media Services). Also, as part of my role in ITP, I initiated the first campus wide Learning Management System service on the Berkeley campus. Finally, for about eight years I staffed the Chancellor’s Computing and Communications Policy Board’s Instructional Technology subcommittee (the CCCPB-IT). So, I have a fair amount of experience with Instructional Technology at the Berkeley campus.

So, for those who claim that the University has done all it can to find ways to reduce the cost of instruction through the use of information technology, I have one question: Who, if anyone, has the authority and the mandate to be in charge of this effort.

Some might think that units that provide services related to Instructional Technology and Education Technology might have some mandate and authority to pursue the goal of cost reduction, but they would be very wrong if they believed this to be the case. We could look for ways to improve the quality of instruction, but I know from personal experience that we would run into stiff resistance if we explicitly started even talking about ways to reduce the cost of instruction.

Also, it is very unlikely that faculty would look for ways to “innovate themselves out of a job” as one instructor put it to me.

So, if IT support staff are not mandated to look for ways to reduce cost ,and faculty do not see it as being in their interests to do so, is it credible for representatives from the university to suggest that anyone is seriously trying to find ways to reduce the cost of instruction through the use of technology?

The first way is to is to have faculty spend less time delivering lectures (and perhaps more time interacting with students in ways that technology cannot), and the second is to reduce the cost of textbooks.

As for lectures, the idea that’s been around for over forty years now is to break large lectures up into small study groups, give the students in these groups problems sets, discussion questions, and videos of the lecture they would otherwise attend in some large lecture hall. The Dean of Stanford’s Scool of Engineering did something like this with their distance education program back in the early seventies. He called it Tutored Video Instruction. When he conducted experiments to see how the TVI students performed relative to his on-campus graduate student, he found that there was no statistically significant difference (although students who were challenged by the material tended to do slightly better in the TVI groups).

So, if one is looking for ways to improve the quality of instruction, the TVI experiments were a failure – the glass is half empty. However, if one is looking for ways to reduce the cost of instruction, the glass is half full.

The High Tech Small Study Group Saga http://innovationmemes.blogspot.com/2010/09/high-tech-small-study-group-saga.html

As for reducting the cost of textbooks check out this link to the slides I presented to a US House subcommittee looking into the high cost of commercial textbooks back in 2007.

A sustainable business model for open electronic textbooks.http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/txtbkpres/beshearspresent.pdf

Earlier, I’d published a paper on the case for creative commons textbooks that also examined the cost of developing a maintaining electronic textbooks. Bottom line, if you had a coalition of around a 1000 schools commission the development of textbooks for around 200 courses, the cost would be around $3.25 per year per student. In total, it would cost around $75 million a year to develop and maintain these textbooks, which is a rounding error in the US Department of Education’s annual budget.

Here’s a link to the paper that supports these figures:

The Case for Creative Commons Textbookshttp://innovationmemes.blogspot.com/2010/09/case-for-creative-commons-textbooks.html

When I wrote this paper, many of my friends pointed out that it would be very difficult to organize such a coaltion because of the free-rider problem (many schools that used the free textbooks would be tempted to do so even though they did not pay their membership dues).

When I presented this idea to congress, Bush was in the White House, so I didn’t see much chance of getting money out of the federal budget. The Obama admin, however, has attempted to allocate funds to create Open Educational Resources.

There’s one more blog post of mine that might interest you. It discusses three different models for persuading faculty to select open textbooks over the commercial alternative. They are: the jawbone, the stick, and the carrot. Currently, California schools are using the jawbone approach, which is better than nothing but may not be optimal. I list the stick approach, but I think it would be inappropriate for California schools. (However, it might be necessary in developing countries where students cannot afford commercial textbooks.) I believe the carrot approach is one that deserves more attention. In essence, it would give faculty a financial incentive to consider open textbooks and it describes where the money would come from to pay for said incentives.

Persuading Faculty to Select Open Textbookshttp://innovationmemes.blogspot.com/2010/09/persuading-faculty-to-select-open.html

Thanks for your interesting post. One other problem is that mesothelioma is generally caused by the breathing of fibres from asbestos fiber, that is a carcinogenic research paper service material. It definitely is commonly noticed among staff inside the engineering industry with long exposure to asbestos. It

To talk the fact this is a pleasant post concerning this topic. I got an unadulterated solution from here. Also I can refer to you all http://www.hwsolvers.com/programming_project here to get educational helps. Yet will wait for more posts from the blogger. Thanks a lot…….

Project Management Processes is the most vital part of project life cycle. Planning your project and successfully completing it is not so easier. Project Management Software delivers new and intuitive experiences in collaborative project management within individuals, so it will be very helpful for my project. Thanks for sharing.

Fabulous post. Thanks a ton for sharing your knowledge! It is great to see that some people still put in an effort into managing their websites. I'll be sure to check back again real soon. cheapairtravell.com |

The engines ought to have a decent mileage and solid inside hardware to keep going long. The auto model ought to be one hundred percent protected and ensured keeping in mind the end goal to get the advance. The borrower ought to have enough and customary month to month wage to profit the loan.There are numerous criteria before purchasing an auto. It is constantly prudent to purchase another auto of a presumed brand. The auto brand ought to have an exceptionally solid goodwill in the vehicles market. Auto Title Loans Chicago

Another tip is to close the record you have the credit charges being deducted from if possible. You should start another record before you close your present record and in no way, shape or form, get payday credits under the new record. You have to treat the payday development inclination like an oppression. Payday Loans

Hello Everybody,My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) Thank you.

Wage is one of the two boss variables that loan specialists truly think about. All things considered, if a candidate lacks a salary, or if nothing else a sufficiently substantial pay, then he can't make the essential reimbursements. Any desires for securing credit endorsement lay on being full-time and beneficially utilized, or having a productive business. Payday Loans San-diego